Tracking Prison Censorship in the United States

The correspondence was disapproved in accordance with Title 15, Section 3136 as it pertains to Section 3006 and or 3135:
Title 15, Section 3006 CONTRABAND:
(c)(5) Plans to disrupt the order, or breath the security, of any facility (such as riot, escape, strike, etc.)
(c)(7) Coded messages.

It violates regulations or local procedures:
Promotes gang activities [CCR, Title 15, Section 3023 (a)]
Unauthorized inmate-to-inmate correspondence and/or inmate-to-parolee/probationer correspondence [CCR, Title 15, Section 3139]
Third party correspondence [PBSP DOM Addendum, section 54010, Attachment 10, #33]

Additional information: Mass mailing from MIM DISTRIBUTORS advocating the continuation of a state wide hunger strike/disturbance. Contains reports from several unidentified California inmates located throughout the state.

The disposition of the letter/mailing is as follows:
Confiscated by GP ISU. The mailing is disallowed per Title 15, Sections 3006, 3135, and 3136.

Signed M. Cleary, Correctional Officer, Investigative Services Unit
and B.W. Freeland, Correctional Captain, Investigative Services Unit

Explain your issue:
The trivial excuses for the denial of my correspondence with MIM Distributors. I have just recently received a 1819 form on which many penalties or infractions were marked down as a cause for the issuance of "1819" although I doubt that a notification or apprising letter of hunger strike merits any promotion of gang activity or third party correspondence, with the latter being the most common excuse for my most recent 1819 forms. Yet within CDCR Title 15 Section 3139, third party correspondence is defined as inmate to inmate in different facilities. And I understand the proxy criteria as well. But publications or mass letters from publishers withholding names, as many human rights/prisoner rights publications do (i.e. Prisoners [sic] Legal News (PLN), California Prison Focus (CPF), MIM Distributors, Critical Resistance, etc.), to apprise prisoners of legal matters, prisoner right matters or more assistance on books/literature programs for prisoners. I am aware of now of the aforementioned being on a banned list so therefore the petty excuses to disallow my mail for interactions out of context is a small gesture of a vendetta to suppress any mail or literature associated with any of these human rights advocate groups. I have been notified by MIM Distributors that on several occasions some literature has been sent to me was censored and returned in the month of August 2011. But I have never been notified of this by the facility in order to appeal as I purchase books and or receive donated books/literature from MIM Distributors, and do not find professional that intended books/literature or mail from MIM Distributors is being disallowed to me at subjective whims. As a July 12, 2011 Director's Level Decision case no. 1020001 criticizes that a blanket denial on "MIM" is inappropriate. Thus I challenge with merit.

Action requested:
I ask that my mail be allowed without prejudice and future publications, books/literature from MIM Distributors of any type meeting CDCR Title 15 Section 3134.1 be allowed and given to me and given due process to appeal any disallowed books/literature. Furthermore, mail room staff and ISU be notified so future hassles can be avoided.

If you are dissatisfied with the Second Level response, explain the reason below:
I wish to pursue this issue of my mail being withheld for matters not violating stipulating articles in CDCR Title 15. My contentions remain the same now which i may add my due process rights have been violated and I suspect they still are. I raised relevant issues on my appeal and the response to that was just reiterations of what it already stated on my 1819 form, nothing else! I have filed a 602 earlier in the year as I bought some magazines from MIM Distributors which under DOM 54010.4 is classified under periodicals, was sent back unbeknownst to me (due process violated). The Sgt. handling my 602 advised me MIM Distributors is not a banned publisher because he checked and all other magazines and material were to be let through, yet at the end of October I received a form from MIM Distributors on all materials that were sent to me, have of what was on [this] list never made it to me yet all fir the DOM 54010.4 criteria. Under what excuses my material was sent back or returned I cannot say as like my 2/15/11 602 Appeal Log #PBSP S-11-00546 I was never notified nor given opportunity to appeal it. Starting in October I have been receiving a slew of 1819 forms on just letters from MIM Distributors, citing excuses from "banned vendor list", third party correspondence and "promotion of gang activity" with "hidden coded messages" - Yet 2nd level reviewer could not specify but reiterate citations which indicates a vague and cursory management of my 602 not thorough. The Dec 2nd 2011 interview was just a "do you have anything further to add" and all was concluded. Therefore I seek relief as stated on Section B, which all material that was disallowed for no ause be re-mailed to me as well as to not have any future mail/books/magazines and literature sent to me by MIM Distributors be withheld or returned, as MIM is not on vendors banned list.

Book allowed after review!

Warden (A) Connie Gipson
California State Prison - Corcoran
PO Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

January 24, 2012

RE: Censorship incidents occurred at California State Prison - Corcoran ? exclusion of publication sent to Mr. xxx

Dear Warden Gipson,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at CSP-Corcoran.

On November 18, 2011 MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner the publication Under Lock & Key issue 23 (November/December 2011). We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received this publications. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publication was censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the letters and publications haven?t been delivered to the inmate and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

As you are certainly aware, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publication sent to Mr. xxx.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1) to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned letters and publications;
2) in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.

We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

Director Charles L. Ryan
Arizona Department of Corrections
1601 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85007

January 4, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at ASPC Winslow ? Kaibab Unit; exclusion of publications sent to inmate Mr. XXX by MIM Distributors.

Dear Director Ryan,

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred in ASPC Winslow ? Kaibab Unit.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned inmate three different issue of a publication titled Under Lock and Key. Precisely MIM Distributors sent Mr. XXX:
❖ Under lock and Key, issue 21 on 07/28/2011
❖ Under lock and Key, issue 22 on 09/21/2011
❖ Under lock and Key, issue 23 on 11/18/2011

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received any of those publications. Nor did he receive any determination of your Department explaining whether and why the publications were censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your Department Order no. 914 states at section 914.02 par. 1.13 that ?Excluding holidays and weekends, incoming mail shall not be held and shall be delivered within 24 hours unless circumstances make delivery impractical.?

The same Order no. 914 also states that incoming publications may be held only if they are subject to review; in this case, though, prompt notice shall be given to the prisoner, according to the review process established by section 914.09 of the Department Order, which also entitles the prisoner to appeal censorship determinations.

Both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither Mr. XXX, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner (Mr. XXX) and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials and/or letter.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors


CC: Affected parties

Any time that a publication is excluded, the prison's mail and property room staff must notify the inmate, by a memorandum issues by the division of Director's office/program services, located at the Department of Corrections in Phoenix, Arizona. In my individual case, correctional officers are either throwing away, giving away to another prisoner, or returning subject newsletter to sender.

The reason why i didn't receive any notice of exclusion or censorship, which falls under Department Order #914.02, 1.13, 914.09, is because the publication (ULK) isn't excluded! There are certain correctional staff who work at this prison unit that have a personal problem with my political beliefs. Thus, three (3) issues of my ULK met with foul play!

Warden Connie Gipson
California State Prison - Corcoran
P.O. Box 8800
Corcoran, CA 93212-8309

January 24th, 2012

RE: Censorship incident occurred at California State Prison - Corcoran ? exclusion of publications and letters sent to prisoner xxx by MIM Distributors.

I am writing this letter about what seems to be a censorship incident that recently occurred at CSP-Corcoran.

MIM Distributors sent the above mentioned prisoner, among others, issues no. 22 and 23 of a publication titled Under Lock & Key (respectively on 9/21/2011 and on 11/18/2011) and a letter on 10/12/2011.

We recently learned from the prisoner that he never received the publications or the letter. Nor did he receive any determinations of your Department explaining whether and why the materials were censored. MIM Distributors didn?t receive any notice of censorship determination either.

Your DOM states at sections 54010.16 and 54010.21.3 that respectively prisoners and publishers have to be notified of negative determinations and entitles both the sender and the recipient to appeal rejections of publications and letters.

As of now, it is impossible for us to understand why the publications and the letter haven?t been delivered to the prisoner and whether or not the Administration has decided to censor them.

As you are certainly aware of, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that both the sender and the prisoner have a right, under the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to receive notice and an opportunity to be heard when prison administrators or staff prevent the sender?s expressive materials from reaching their intended recipients (Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S.396. 94 S.Ct 1800, as reaffirmed on the point by Turner V. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) and Montcalm Publ'g Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105, 106 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 928 (1996)). In plain and striking contradiction with these principles, neither the prisoner, nor MIM Distributors were notified of the censorship decision or actually of any decisions that the Mailroom staff has made with regard to the publications and the letter sent to Mr. xxx.

In refusing to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to both the prisoner and the publisher (MIM Distributors), under local policies and/or practices, prison administrators and staff violated clearly established constitutional law and acted under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. ? 1983.

In addition, the practice of holding publications and/or letters for an indefinite time without providing notice of any determination is certainly unconstitutional, as it does not satisfy the obligation that the prison administration has to provide both the sender and the recipient with a decision in a reasonable time and ultimately frustrates the right that both the sender and the prisoner have to appeal a negative determination.

With the present letter, MIM Distributors requests
1. to know whether or not a determination has been made over the mentioned publications and letter;
2. in case of a negative determination, to be notified of the reasons of the censorship decision and to be offered a chance to appeal the exclusion of its materials.

We also request that adequate notice be provided to the prisoner.

We appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

MIM Distributors

CC: Affected parties

MIM Distributors protested the censorship of ULKs 22 and 23 at CSP Corcoran. The prisoner reported receiving this letter after MIM Distributors's letter went to the warden.

See 9/13/11 docs

Please know that I was able to obtain a hearing yesterday on the administration's rejection of MIM Theory 13, even though MDOC policy doesn't require one to be held due to it already being on the Restricted Publications List (RPL). The hearing officer gave two reasons for upholding the rejection: 1) It was on the RPL; 2) It was racist because there was an article against white supremacists. I found reason number 2 rather illuminating. . . I asked which article she was referring to and, quickly scanning the table of contents, asked her, "Is it the book review criticizing Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf?" In any event, she could not point out a single reason for the rejection let alone relate it to a serious penological concern. I flipped through it and pointed out many reasons why it should be let in and, of course, one of them was that it is against white supremacy or racial supremacy of any type.

see 11/22/11 docs